This is the second order by the tribunal in little over a year asking the asset management company to make good the losses in the same scheme. This could potentially have a far-reaching impact where aggrieved investors are not treated fairly by fund houses.

The case relates to complaints filed by some unit holders who had alleged that HSBC Mutual Fund had denied them an opportunity to exit their investments after it changed the fundamental attributes of the scheme.

In 2009, two investors - Subramanian Venkat and his wife Anuradha Venkatasubramanian -- had first approached Sebi seeking its intervention, but the regulator had merely let off the fund house with a warning. Unhappy over the Sebi action, they approached the tribunal for compensation and an exit from the scheme. Last year, SAT ruled in favour of investors, setting aside Sebi's order, and directed the fund house to compensate the losses.

After this, twelve other investors jointly moved SAT seeking a similar verdict in their favour. Last week, the petition was upheld by SAT in investors' favour.

"..We would have normally issued a direction to respondents (HSBC)...give an exit route to all those who were unit holders on the date of the change. We are refraining from issuing such a direction as we were informed by the respondents (HSBC) during the course of the hearing that NAV (net asset value) of the scheme has now substantially increased and that no unit holder shall like to exit at the then prevailing NAV, which was much lower."

"Moreover, no other unit holder/ investor has come up in appeal before us. This, however, does not mean that the appellants who have been agitating the matter can be deprived of their right to exit the scheme as on the date of the change at the then prevailing NAV," the SAT order said.

After SAT's first order, HSBC Mutual Fund had moved the Supreme Court. According to a person close to the development, the fund house has challenged the SAT order favouring Subramanian R Venkat and his wife before the apex court. The fund house is yet to take a decision on clubbing the recent order with its earlier petition.

These unit holders had invested their money in HSBC Gilt Fund, which had two plans -- short term and long term. They opted for the short-term plan, which according to the offer document, would invest in gilts with an average maturity of the portfolio not exceeding seven years and modified duration not exceeding five years.

However, in February 2009, these investors came to know from market sources that the fund house had made certain changes in the schemes because of which the price of their investments had fallen substantially.

When the investors made enquiries, they were informed that the short-term plan which was meant for investment in government securities for a period of 5 to 7 years was changed to a term investment not exceeding 15 years.

Sebi rules mandate fund houses to inform investors of any changes in the policy whether fundamental or otherwise, which would affect the interest of the investors.

A HSBC spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. Securities lawyers and industry officials feel this ruling may prompt other investors too to approach a court of law to seek relief in cases pertaining to personal investments.